SERIOUS CHARGE

Te Awamutu Courier, Volume 79, Issue 7077, 6 July 1949, Page 6

SERIOUS CHARGE

ALLEGED CARNAL KNOWLEDGE

CASE HEARD AND COMMITTED TO HIGHER COURT

A man charged with alleged carnal knowledge of a mental defective appeared in the Te Awamutu Magistrate’s Court yesterday, before Mr S. L. Paterson, S.M. After the hearing of evidence the case was committed to the next Supreme Court session in Hamilton. The accused’s name was suppressed upon application by Mr A. R. Hill, who appeared for him. Evidence by six witnesses and the defendant was heard. Detective John Hayes, of Hamilton said in evidence that as the result of a complaint, he had interviewed the defendant and told him that the girl had alleged that he had committed the offence as a result of which she was pregnant, and that the offence had been committed on January Ist. Defendant said that he had not committed the offence and could give no reason why the girl had accused him. With the defendants permission he had asked the girl to identify the accused, said Detective Hayes, and she had duly done so. Defendant at that time had asked the girl if he was the person who had assaulted her, and she had replied in the affirmative. He had asked her why she said it was him and she had replied: “Yes, it was you.” After the girl had been taken away, defendant said that ail he could do was deny itPrior to Detective Hayes’ evidence, the girl had been placed in the witness box, and during cross-examination by Detective-Sergeant Tait, of Hamilton, she was asked to identify the accused in the courtroom, which she duly did by pointing to him in the prisoners’ dock. During further examination by Mr Tait, she said that she had been willing to allow the accused to assault her.

After the case for the prosecution had been completed, Mr Hill submitted that the Crown case rested on the testimony of a girl who was mentally deficient. The evidence had showed that the accused had had the opportunity to associate with the girl but it also proved that so had many others.

Mr Paterson said that a prima facie case had been established but the weight of the. evidence was placed on the mentally defective girl’s evidence and had to go to a higher court for trial by jury.

Mr Hill then asked for and was granted permission to put the defendant in the witness box. Following the defendant’s evidence, Mr Paterson said that a prima facie case was still established. In granting permission to an application for the suppression of the defendant’s name and in committing the case to a higher court. The magistrate stated that he knew what his decision would have been had he decided to give one., but an acquittal by a higher court would carry more weight in the defendant’s favour.